The proportionality test in UK Administrative Law
The proportionality test in UK Administrative Law
Traditionally, administrative action in the UK has been subject to three grounds of review. Lord Diplock, in the GCHQ case, reiterated these and labeled them ‘procedural impropriety’, ‘illegality’ and ‘irrationality’. The test to establish whether a decision was irrational had been subject to a particularly large amount of litigation and, consequently, debate. A definitive answer to the debate was laid down in 1947 by the House of Lords in Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Coroporation.[2] Lord Greene MR ruled that the exercise of executive discretion could be invalidated if the decision was ‘so unreasonable that no reasonable body could reach it’.[3] This rule was designed to make it unusual for decisions to be successfully challenged on this ground, and hence set a very high standard for invalidation. It was not generally considered to be within the courts’ constitutional role to criticize executive decisions on their merits – they were only to intervene in the most inequitable of situations. Proportionality, a doctrine applied as a ground of review across continental Europe, necessarily grants judiciaries wider powers to consider the merits of a decision. Broadly, it necessitates an assessment of the balance between interests and objectives. The decision made must be proved to have been necessary to meet a legitimate aim, and the most reasonable way of doing so. Consequently it is a far more stringent test for irrationality than Wednesbury. Since the UK joined the European Union in 1973, judges have been required to apply the proportionality test in cases with a European dimension and increasing pressure has been placed upon the judiciary to incorporate the test into domestic administrative law. This study will assess the origins of the doctrine’s increased influence, the present state of the law, and the likelihood that it will be incorporated as a distinct ground of review in the future.
Traditionally, administrative action in the UK has been subject to three grounds of review. Lord Diplock, in the GCHQ case, reiterated these and labeled them ‘procedural impropriety’, ‘illegality’ and ‘irrationality’. The test to establish whether a decision was irrational had been subject to a particularly large amount of litigation and, consequently, debate. A definitive answer to the debate was laid down in 1947 by the House of Lords in Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Coroporation.[2] Lord Greene MR ruled that the exercise of executive discretion could be invalidated if the decision was ‘so unreasonable that no reasonable body could reach it’.[3] This rule was designed to make it unusual for decisions to be successfully challenged on this ground, and hence set a very high standard for invalidation. It was not generally considered to be within the courts’ constitutional role to criticize executive decisions on their merits – they were only to intervene in the most inequitable of situations. Proportionality, a doctrine applied as a ground of review across continental Europe, necessarily grants judiciaries wider powers to consider the merits of a decision. Broadly, it necessitates an assessment of the balance between interests and objectives. The decision made must be proved to have been necessary to meet a legitimate aim, and the most reasonable way of doing so. Consequently it is a far more stringent test for irrationality than Wednesbury. Since the UK joined the European Union in 1973, judges have been required to apply the proportionality test in cases with a European dimension and increasing pressure has been placed upon the judiciary to incorporate the test into domestic administrative law. This study will assess the origins of the doctrine’s increased influence, the present state of the law, and the likelihood that it will be incorporated as a distinct ground of review in the future.